[1797] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Manning)
Thu Feb 1 17:52:52 1996
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning)
To: jon@branch.com (Jon Zeeff)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 14:29:21 -0800 (PST)
Cc: bmanning@ISI.EDU, jon@branch.com, curtis@ans.net, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu,
G.Huston@aarnet.edu.au, asp@uunet.uu.net, cidrd@iepg.org, iesg@ISI.EDU,
local-ir@ripe.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <m0ti3d6-000NiyC@aero.branch.com> from "Jon Zeeff" at Feb 1, 96 01:21:08 pm
>
> > > Another factoid to consider - I know of a company that has a Class C that
> > > they don't use. To my knowledge, nobody has ever even asked that
> > > they give it up. Some automated email process could do this without
> > > much effort.
> > >
> > Well, almost. The IPGR robot is, in fact, doing just that.
>
> Based on never having received such an email and knowing of
> several others who haven't either, I disagree.
>
"All in good time my pretty..."
We are working on the 192.x.x.x swamp right now.
Rough estimates (with much more accurate data @ NANOG)
60% - invalid or missing contact information
25% - in use & unwilling to renumber
15% - willing to renumber or return
This is from ~6,000 delegated entries. If all goes well,
we can find some new area to work on sometime in later this
year.
Have any suggestions? 198.x.x.x? The old /16 space?
--bill
